Posted by whats_up
2009-12-04 14:00:45

Oh are you back now. Allow sufficient time so you do not have to address how wrong you were earlier in your statement that the F-22 was going away?

"And does Sec Gates and the Sec of the Army and Air Force who are proposing getting rid of the f-22 hate the military as well?"


Please do not comment on topics you do not understand. The F-22 is a fully operational and modern weapon system that has a mission that it is the best at. It will remain in service for at least 25 years. Parts will continue to be made and a future order is also not out of the question. So it is not discontinued. Jeez where do this libtards that despise the military come up with their BS?

Wrong the F-22 is not discontinued there are more than 180 in service and they will remain in service for a long time.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-04 13:37:52

While it will remain in serive, it has been dicountinued, they wont be making any more, thats what discountinued means idiotstick!!

Again, anything that contradicts your hyper-sensitivity-hawkness automatically gets the strawman treatment.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-04 13:15:33


By the way Dumbass I am the one that brought the topic up (Obama dissing military), you are the one that devolved it into a debate about the F-22 which you got totally beaten down on. LMAO You certainly are not all that bright.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-04 13:15:33


Wrong. I am not talking about the West Point speech I am referring to his visit to an Alaskan airbase.

Wrong the F-22 is not discontinued there are more than 180 in service and they will remain in service for a long time.

Why do you lie or are so wrong all the time? It is really laughable.


Again the visit should not be about Obama it should be about what the "troops" want.


I'm not hyper-sensitive I am a veteran.

He didn't disrespect those airmen, he paid respects to them by addressing the escalation of troops in Af-Pak at West Point.

To have a discontinued aircraft behind him would not make sense.

Again, anything that contradicts your hyper-sensitivity-hawkness automatically gets the strawman treatment.

The only ones going off on tangents are you and Baud, who are obsessed with all things dick-related.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-04 12:43:37


Why did Obama direspect those airmen in Alaska? Why when visiting members of the military was it more important to be about him rather than the airmen? Why? Why?

A little more pwnage for our resident whinybitch, D-Vacuous:

http://www.defensereview.com/f-22-raptor-progra...

The only ones going off on tangents are you and Baud, who are obsessed with all things dick-related.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-04 12:43:37

It sure is taking you a long time to get your vagina sewn shut, D-Vega. Not that there is any surprise, since you are easily the biggest pussy on this board.

Fresh topics are up for you to get your ass kicked on.

Run away Dick-Vacuum you have another epic-fail even after trying to twist and squirm and redirect the entire thread. Whatever topic came up you went off on some tangent.

The only ones going off on tangents are you and Baud, who are obsessed with all things dick-related.

Still avoiding the main point, typical.
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-04 12:17:13

Still avoiding the main point, typical.
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-04 12:17:13


Run away Dick-Vacuum you have another epic-fail even after trying to twist and squirm and redirect the entire thread. Whatever topic came up you went off on some tangent.

D-Clueless comes back to spew bile, fail epically, and get schooled some more:

"That doesn't answer my question. Why hasn't it been used? "

Actually, if you weren't the ignorant tool that you are, it DOES answer your question. An air superiority fighter is deployed in two roles: (1) interception, where it intercepts and shoots down attacking enemy planes, and (2) attack, where it takes COMPLETE control of the airspace over a battlefield, denying access to enemy air assets, and protecting OUR air assets, like strike fighters (the F-35 you seem to like so much - which IS a fine strike fighter - it is simply NOT an air superiority fighter, and never will be). So, riddle me this, D-Vacuous, when was the last major air battle where EITHER of those two roles were taken by American planes, and was the F-22 in service at the time?

"And as a bonus question, how you would even know what dick breath smells like?"

You come on here every day and give us a sample. Does Teh One ever give you a courtesy suck, when you're done blowing him, or does he just give you the occasional reach-around?


"I know the role of an air superiority fighter, but when you consider newer models of the F-15, which will still be used well beyond 2025, are still superior to any foreign aircraft, and the addition of the F-35 fighter aircraft, you come to the conclusion that we really didn't need the F-22, and any further construction is not needed."

Except, that is not even close to true. The F-15 is a fine plane, and, yes, it has had upgrades that make it a better plane. Unfortunately, the design is more than 40 years old (first flew in 1972), and it is showing its age. Versus the SU-30 and Typhoon, it is NOT able to achieve battlefield dominance like the F-22 (http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30...). But, thanks for once again proving your towering ignorance.


"No, it means that it is really about the contractors needing those contracts for the nearly 95,000 people who work on the aircraft."

Well, at least you admit Congress is clueless. But what does THIS have to do with anything??? Either we need a G5 (that's "5th Generation" for you, Mr. Ignorance) air superiority fighter, or we don't. You think we don't - but, then, everything you've posted on this thread proves you don't know your ass from your elbow about matters military, so we'll afford your ignorant opinion all the respect it deserves - none.


"Yeah, they are lying because of political reasons. Why you hate the military?"

I don't know; why you hate grammar? The Secretaries, my ignorant fried, are politicians, not military. Any "military" person at cabinet level is more politician than soldier, even if they were, at one time, an excellent troop. However, to achieve that status, they get to sell their souls to the C in C - sorta like you've done with Teh One. Oops, sorry, I forgot - you didn't SELL him anything; you GAVE him your ass.

"More straw than the Scarecrow, but it's understandable considering what the Scrarecrow's problem was.

Your other problem is the fact that the F-15, which will still be used well into the future, is an air superiority fighter."

Yes, it is, but as I've proven to you above, it is NOT capable of achieving air superiority against the best likely competition.


"Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.

That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.

I mean, that's from YOUR article.

That gonna leave a bruise."

Not a scratch. The F-22, in Brawler exercises, regularly achieved results of 16 to one against all comers, including upgraded F-15s and SU-30s. So, you would kill four times as many American pilots to achieve the same result, to save a few bucks (which your butt buddy Obama can then spend on "Cash for Clunkers," I suppose)??? Why do you hate our military, D-Vacuous???

"I can imagine how you must feel then, getting your arse whupped. It's obvious when you keep going for the "you hate the military" strawman."

Yeah, right. Your ass has been kicked around this thread so much, you probably can't even feel that good drilling Teh One gave you last night.

"Yes, only you understand these things, Mr. Veal."

No, most of the conservatives on the thread seem to understand these thigs just fine. Too bad you don't. Now go away, silly little bitch.

More frothing from the Dumbnamic Duo.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-04 12:12:57


Still avoiding the main point, typical.

More frothing from the Dumbnamic Duo.

Dick-Vacuum is a complete waste of sperm, fact.

Considering the amount of info I presented, the section that Jerking_in_CA cited amounts to a hill of McCain '08 T-shirts.

The F-22 was a waste of money. Sure, they could be used, but that doesn't mean they were not a waste. The F-35 will be used, as well as F-15 aircraft well beyond 2025.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-04 10:26:39


Epic fail Dick-Vacuum. The part I found in your cut and paste was the summary of Gates' opinion of the F-22 which completly counters your assertion that it is a complete waste of money.


And once again you have avoided the actual point of the discussion. President Oloser insulted and disrepected some proud members of the military to make the whole visit ABOUT HIM how you do not address this and avoid it is very telling.


So Dick-Vacuum says the F-22 is a complete waste of money and the only evidence presented to back that up is Dick-Vacuum said so. Typical..

Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-04 11:43:26

Hey, I have an idea for you, D-Vega.

Sew up your vagina, act like a man, and try posting on a current thread where there are people to debate. Answering posts from people who you know will not return to respond is a cowards way to debate.

New York City is full of whores.

I wouldn't know, but thanks.

I'll keep you in mind as a whore-guru, in case Elliot Spitzer calls.

Tell your mom & wife that I want my deposit back.

They rescheduled for the Spring. They both said the holidays are their busy season.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-04 11:10:17

Funny, but unnecessary. New York City is full of whores. Just walk outside. Oh, and stay off the corner of Broadway and Fifth. That's your sister's corner and she's picky about her customers.

No, Baud, your wife and your mom never showed up.

They rescheduled for the Spring. They both said the holidays are their busy season.

Sorry, Baud, that should read "That is why after the U.S. has been in two wars for the last six years, the F-22 has not been used."
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-04 11:04:31

Better.

BTW, did you wife learn anything from those prostitutes?

Sorry, Baud, that should read "That is why after the U.S. has been in two wars for the last six years, the F-22 has not been used."

D-Vega, you are such a pussy!

*cough*GoFuck*cough*Yourself*cough*

The advantage of the F-35, as I said a long time ago, is that is it more suited to modern uses. That is why after being in two wars for the last 6 years, it has not been used.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-04 10:59:45

Are you saying the F-35 has been in operation for the past 6 years and has not been used because it was not needed?

There is actually very little overlap in the two planes capabilities.

The advantage of the F-35, as I said a long time ago, is that is it more suited to modern uses. That is why after being in two wars for the last 6 years, it has not been used.

This from the man - wait, no, simpleton child - who has "no disdain" for our military. D_Clueless, do you EVER get tired of lying to cover up your hatred of America?

*cough*Strawman*cough*nothingleft*cough*

If it had been used, Dickbreath, you would be
shitting your pants right about now.

That doesn't answer my question. Why hasn't it been used?

And as a bonus question, how you would even know what dick breath smells like?

Wait, I retract that one. I don't want to know.

Again, WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AN AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER? Just admit you have NO FUCKING CLUE, and we'll move along.

I know the role of an air superiority fighter, but when you consider newer models of the F-15, which will still be used well beyond 2025, are still superior to any foreign aircraft, and the addition of the F-35 fighter aircraft, you come to the conclusion that we really didn't need the F-22, and any further construction is not needed.

See response above, and thanks, once again, for trotting your TOWERING ignorance out for all to see.

I know you are upset, like a little bitch, but try to achieve some lucidity.

Because Congress is as fully clueless as are you, and the DoD is doing as ordered. Jeebus, but you are stupid.

No, it means that it is really about the contractors needing those contracts for the nearly 95,000 people who work on the aircraft.

Because the Air Force and Army Secretaries (i) work for the pResident, and he's been against the F-22 since he came to Washington, and (ii) because they saw a lost POLITICAL battle.

Yeah, they are lying because of political reasons. Why you hate the military?

Because he's a political hack, and he works for Teh One.

Again, you demonstrate your disdain for our military.

Because it's an AIR SUPERIORITY fighter, asswipe. You just proved my earlier point - you have no CLUE of the difference between an air superiority figher and a strike fighter, or their different roles. Thanks for proving your ignorance.

More straw than the Scarecrow, but it's understandable considering what the Scrarecrow's problem was.

Your other problem is the fact that the F-15, which will still be used well into the future, is an air superiority fighter.

You're failing all over the place.

Money quote: "Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals."

From the very same article:

Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.

That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.

I mean, that's from YOUR article.

That gonna leave a bruise.

And just to round off your schooling, young padawan, check this out:

Both of those articles were really interesting, but this last one fails to take into account both the F-15 and the F-35, as compared to the need of the F-22.

I have no doubt it is an impressive aircraft.

D-Vega, dumb, but arrogant. And a legend in his own mind. Come on back when you need to be schooled some more, you ignorant, arrogant, anti-military asswipe.

I can imagine how you must feel then, getting your arse whupped. It's obvious when you keep going for the "you hate the military" strawman.

Proving, once again, that neither you nor Rand understand AIR SUPERIORITY. No, with the F-22 in the air, we would NOT lose tanker capability.

Yes, only you understand these things, Mr. Veal.

And how often do you engage in the same cherry-picking, mmm? Don't say you don't, because we all know that's a lie. You routinely hold people to the standard that any little error or inconsistency in what they've said is tantamount to their whole comment/argument being flawed. Why shouldn't others hold you to the same standard?

Considering the amount of info I presented, the section that Jerking_in_CA cited amounts to a hill of McCain '08 T-shirts.

The F-22 was a waste of money. Sure, they could be used, but that doesn't mean they were not a waste. The F-35 will be used, as well as F-15 aircraft well beyond 2025.

Wow. Back & forth frothing.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-04 10:01:54

Look, everyone. D-Vega has FINALLY returned to the thread to provide us his stellar political commentary and to dispute all our previous claims. You could have seen this coming?

D-Vega, you are such a pussy!

Wow. Back & forth frothing.

The stained one speaks while his spelling sucks. Par for the course for noshow2.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-03 17:10:08

A typo and spelling I didn't check but acknowledged may not be right (thus the (sp) tag). And you Never-show thinks he's the shit!! You're pathetic liar, a complete ignoramus of just about everything I've ever seen you post on, and otherwise just trolling jack-ass.

Congrats you're almost as pathetic as M@rth@!!!

Hmm. Looks like D-Clueless is curled up in a foetal position, sucking his thumb and whimpering over the complete pwnage he was subjected to. Typical - come in like he thinks he's the smartest guy EVAH, then run away like a little bitch when he figures out he doesn't know shit from Shinola about the subject at hand (which would be, as it turns out, just about any subject).

Major_O,

Just asking for a professional opinion - doesn't any analysis of the "need" for the F-22 have to START with a forward-looking threat assessment? A common slap at the Pentagon is that the Pentagon is always preparing to win the LAST war they fought - continuing "Cold War" planning and procurement long after a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was even a remote possiblity, continuing to plan for Vietnam after insurgencies were no longer wholly "proxy wars," and, now, planning for an infinite series of Iraq/Afghanistan style conflicts, just as China is arming itself to the teeth, and Russia is resurgent.

If we we knew we were going to be fighting nothing but Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Kosovo type conflicts, I would certainly agree that the F-22 is not needed for that. But even against an opponent like, for example, Iran (which currently has late-generation Soviet and Chinese fighters, anti-aircraft missles, radar, etc.), and certainly if we ever confronted Russia or China, a true "air superiority" fighter would be key to that conflict.

Not to say that there may not BE "waste" in the F-22 program (which is an ENTIRELY different matter than saying the plane itself is a waste), but it's hard for me to see how you can consider a 5th Generation air superiority fighter a "waste" unless you believe you can confidentily assume away ANY chance of conflict against the 4th Generation or better air force.

Or am I missing something? You professional input would be most appreciated.

With respect to the F-22 discussion, I was not saying that I think the argument for cutting the F-22 was wholly without merit. The honest fact is, I don't feel I have the requisite background to speak authoritatively on the issue.

What I was saying is simply throwing out, "It's a waste!" and then citing the folks who thought it a waste is not critical thinking in the least and certainly doesn't conclude the argument.

From what I can tell, Gates' opposition was based on his assessment that the acft is over-priced and unnecessary given what he considers to be the sufficiency of the F-35 to fulfill the same role. The Air Combat Command CC at the time begged to differ.

And Obama et al still need to do some basic brush up on working with military units to understand that every commander, esp the higher up you go, IS A CELEBRITY. A smart commander will use that star power to bolster those under him, much like Bush did (in my estimate, he was the best president of my adult lifetime in that respct). Even though many in the military can't stand Obama, they still revere the office and would be excited to be somehow featured or associated with a visit to their workcenter. And don't think the F-15 operators and maintainers were snickering at the F-22 crews saying "HA! THEY'RE LOSS!" They no doubt saw the lameness in the decision to change up and use the F-15 instead and made their assessment of Obama accordingly.

Posted by Major_O
2009-12-03 18:01:34

Thank you, Major_O, for your words of wisdom (although, when dealing with D-Clueless and what's_my_drug_of_the_day, it amounts to pearls before swine). And thank you for your service.

I know how proud those men are of the job they do, and, yes, the planes they fly, and making them roll the F-22 away was a deliberate, thoughtless, ham-handed, morale-destroying slap in the face from a thuggish "community organizer" - scandalous conduct toward men whom he will never equal, either in service or in honor. But I expect nothing more from him - or our resident liberals, for that matter.

As someone has pointed out, these folks work long, unexciting hours maintaining and flying the F-22. To be swept aside because having it as a--dare I say?--"photo op" would jeopardize some image Obama wants to have is bad leadership. He made the call to continue the push to cut the F-22 and his side got their way. So stand by your decision, CinC! Be proud of what you decided and have the guts to deal with it.
Posted by Major_O
2009-12-03 18:01:34


An excellent post, but I am afraid DV has run away and taken his buddies with him and will not return. They cannot begin to understand the disrespect Obama showed those Alaskan airmen when he got all political with what they take pride in. DV and gang are partisan politcal hacks and can only understand things with their political glasses on.

Let me know if anyone needs any further schooling. I think you guys may have forgotten who you are dealing with.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 17:07:40

I don't "who" you are supposed to be, so you'll have to excuse me when I say I don't particularly care. The argument over the F-22 has more than one side to it. It's funny that the AF CC for Air Combat Command specifically said he wanted the F-22 and that cutting it would put our strategic aims at risk. This from the 4-star whose primary job is AIR COMBAT for the AF. You know, someone who just MIGHT know a thing or two about the capability of the acft and how it would fit in our arsenal.

Just about every major weapon system we have ever produced was said by someone in the DoD and outside of it to be a "waste." Real critical thinking requires you to evaluate all sides of the argument before confidently going on about the outcome.

And what supremely pisses me off is people who come here and unreservedly support those in the WH and Congress who are spending a trillion dollars and change having the GALL to talk about something being a waste! At least the F-22 actually WORKS!!!

Finally, not that I'm all that, but I've had the opportunity as an AF officer to be an interim commander of a unit of 452 persons and I can tell you, when you make moves like Obama's aides did, you HAVE to think about how it impacts the morale of the unit. EVERY DECISION YOU MAKE (just about) is held under a microscope and can have ramifications in terms of morale that you wouldn't believe.

As someone has pointed out, these folks work long, unexciting hours maintaining and flying the F-22. To be swept aside because having it as a--dare I say?--"photo op" would jeopardize some image Obama wants to have is bad leadership. He made the call to continue the push to cut the F-22 and his side got their way. So stand by your decision, CinC! Be proud of what you decided and have the guts to deal with it.

There is actually very little overlap in the two planes capabilities.
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 17:49:52

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Oh, look, how surprising! A conservative understands the difference between an air superiority fighter and a strike fighter, and NONE of the liberals do.

How surprising!! /sarc

Posted by LampofDiogenes
2009-12-03 17:54:36

See my post of:

I believe this is actually meant for me. My statement of " They are proposing not to make anymore iow they have enough." is a reflection of those that do not want to order anymore F-22's and not necessarily my opinion. I do not have an opinion on the number we need, but I do 100% believe we need the F-22 and the F-35 for completley different missions. There is actually very little overlap in the two planes capabilities.
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 17:49:52

"Blah. I know they are proud, with due reason. But they are capable of flying other figher aircraft. And I'm sure they will do fine. The F-22 is only a tool."

This from the man - wait, no, simpleton child - who has "no disdain" for our military. D_Clueless, do you EVER get tired of lying to cover up your hatred of America?

"They are not proposing to get rid of the F-22 dummy. They are proposing not to make anymore iow they have enough."

Martinhale, I was reacting to the "iow they have enough."

Unfortunately, certain people *cough* D-Clueless *cough* what's_my_head_up *cough* are not capable of understanding the role, and capabilities, of the F-22, and the difference it would make to our force structure, the impact it would have on "first minutes" on the battlefield, the difference between operational control of airspace and air SUPERIORITY, etc., etc, et ad nauseum fucking cetera.

Posted by martinhale
2009-12-03 17:48:29

My only point to you was that my quote-mining 100% disproved Dick-Vacuum's statement that the F-22 is a complete waste of money. It is irrelevant all the other reasoning in his cut and paste of an article because I found the "bottom-line" or the "final judgement" statement as to the author's view on the F-22. And he cried and ran away like a bitch. So I did not actually pick one staement, I found the final summary of the author's thoughts on the relevance of the F-22.

And, NO, Martinhale, they DON'T "have enough" F-22's. Check out the second cite I handed D-Clueless.
Posted by LampofDiogenes
2009-12-03 17:41:10


I believe this is actually meant for me. My statement of " They are proposing not to make anymore iow they have enough." is a reflection of those that do not want to order anymore F-22's and not necessarily my opinion. I do not have an opinion on the number we need, but I do 100% believe we need the F-22 and the F-35 for completley different missions. There is actually very little overlap in the two planes capabilities.

Uh, LOD - my comment 17:24 was directed at Vega. From your postings, it seems as both you and Living Right think I'm against the F22. Perhaps you've gotten me crossed up with one of the F-22 haters.

Me? I likes fast planes what has nice tricks.

And, NO, Martinhale, they DON'T "have enough" F-22's. Check out the second cite I handed D-Clueless.

And does Sec Gates and the Sec of the Army and Air Force who are proposing getting rid of the f-22 hate the military as well? You really are reaching today.
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-03 17:33:06


They are not proposing to get rid of the F-22 dummy. They are proposing not to make anymore iow they have enough. And what exactly does that have to do with airmen rolling out an operational aircraft that they support and the Prz and his cronies pitch a fit and make it all about Obama?

You will have to do better than that.



Posted by martinhale
2009-12-03 17:24:57


Actually whatever one thinks about the F-22 it is in the fleet, it will be used and has purpose. My quote mining clearly disproves Dick-Vacuum's statement that the F-22 was a complete waste of money.

"Whatever. The F-22 was a huge waste of money. If it is so good, why hasn't it been used?"

If it had been used, Dickbreath, you would be shitting your pants right about now. Again, WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AN AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER? Just admit you have NO FUCKING CLUE, and we'll move along.

"Maybe you could explain why we need more F-22s when we haven't used them, and we already have 183 of them?"

See response above, and thanks, once again, for trotting your TOWERING ignorance out for all to see.

"Maybe you could explain why Congress order 12 more, when the Defense Dept ordered only 4?"

Because Congress is as fully clueless as are you, and the DoD is doing as ordered. Jeebus, but you are stupid.

"Maybe you could explain why both the Air Force & Army Secretaries withdrew support for the fighters saying "it's time to move on"?"

Because the Air Force and Army Secretaries (i) work for the pResident, and he's been against the F-22 since he came to Washington, and (ii) because they saw a lost POLITICAL battle.

"Maybe you could explain why Secretary Gates said future funding of the F-22 was "a big problem"?"

Because he's a political hack, and he works for Teh One.

"Maybe you could explain why the F-22 has limited air-to-ground capabilities as compared to the cheaper F-35?"

Because it's an AIR SUPERIORITY fighter, asswipe. You just proved my earlier point - you have no CLUE of the difference between an air superiority figher and a strike fighter, or their different roles. Thanks for proving your ignorance.

"Maybe you could explain why if the F-35 is still superior to any current foreign fighter, why waste money on something that we don't use and it not suited for modern warfare?"

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349...

Money quote: "Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals."

And just to round off your schooling, young padawan, check this out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A...

"Let me know if anyone needs any further schooling. I think you guys may have forgotten who you are dealing with.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 17:07:40

D-Vega, dumb, but arrogant. And a legend in his own mind.

Come on back when you need to be schooled some more, you ignorant, arrogant, anti-military asswipe.
"Maybe you could explain why an August 2008 RAND study showed that, as a land based aircraft, the F-22 would have little impact on a future conflict with China over Taiwan as its nearby bases would be shutdown by MRBMs and farther bases would require the assistance of tanker aircraft that would be quickly lost."

Proving, once again, that neither you nor Rand understand AIR SUPERIORITY. No, with the F-22 in the air, we would NOT lose tanker capability.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 17:15:04

And does Sec Gates and the Sec of the Army and Air Force who are proposing getting rid of the f-22 hate the military as well? You really are reaching today.

Ah Dick-Vacuum does the quote I found in your cut and paste kill your whole arguement that the "F-22 is a complete waste of money".. Ah you are running away again while never addressing the main point... again... Run away Dick-Vacuum you have been thoroughly thrashed on this site. Take Retarddick with you and go jack-off to Countdown tonight.

uH, yEaH, BarelyBrainActive_in_CA, just disregard everything else I said and select one item.

And how often do you engage in the same cherry-picking, mmm? Don't say you don't, because we all know that's a lie. You routinely hold people to the standard that any little error or inconsistency in what they've said is tantamount to their whole comment/argument being flawed.

Why shouldn't others hold you to the same standard?

uH, yEaH, BarelyBrainActive_in_CA, just disregard everything else I said and select one item.

You are truly pathetic and lame. Goodnight, Gracie.

Let me know if anyone needs any further schooling. I think you guys may have forgotten who you are dealing with.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 17:07:40



From Dick-Vacuum's cut and paste we find:

"Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet."

Which is not the same as what Dick-Vacuum said "F-22 is a complete waste of money".

Also Dick-Vacuum misses the relevent point which directly relates to people who are serving in the military. I'll repeat:

Tell ya something DV, the military and the people in it HATE fin politics. They could care less about Obama's past votes on this weapon system or another. Point is it is deployed and those men and women take pride in what they do. I know this will not impact you in anyway, because like Obama and dems in general, underneath all your PC words, you disdain the military and really do not understand a thing about it nor about the men and women who serve in it. IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA WHEN HE VISITS A MILITARY BASE IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE MILITARY UNIT, PERIOD.


So DV it is irrelevant about the history of the F-22. The airman roled out what they are proud in doing an Obama and his cronies made it all about Obama and completly disrespected the airmen on the base. We know this BECAUSE THOSE AIRMEN TOLD US. I know you will avoid this point and/or deny it, because you despise the military and it shows.

Shut up never-show, you're attepmts at insult are as pathetic as the rest of your worthless existance(sp).
Posted by bthewolf
2009-12-03 16:58:24

The stained one speaks while his spelling sucks. Par for the course for noshow2.

Let me know if anyone needs any further schooling. I think you guys may have forgotten who you are dealing with.

More from Secretary Gates:

Air superiority and missile defense – two areas where the budget has attracted the most criticism – provide case studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22 fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future potential conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air supremacy? For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision-guided bombs and missiles. The president’s budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs – aircraft that have a greater range than some of our manned fighters, in addition to the ability to loiter for hours over a target. And we will buy many more in the future.

We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if – and it is a big if – money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs.

Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion – and counting – to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.

In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 – the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental – was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president.

The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline.

Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.

Unsupported assertions of (blatantly incorrect) "facts" do not an argument make. Tell us, oh DV of military brilliance, what is an "air superiority" fighter, what is its role, what is the CURRENT U.S. "air superiority" fighter, how old is its design, and how does it compare to "air superiority" fighters deployed by, or about to be deployed by, likely military opponents of the U.S.? Do that for me, and I might think there is some point in trying to explain to you why, far from being a "waste," the F-22 is a VITAL weapons system, without which we are in serious danger of being well and truly fucked flat in, say, a confrontation with the PRC over their attempts to militarily retake Taiwan (not that our gutless windsock of a pResident would "confront" anybody except a domestic political opponent).

Whatever. The F-22 was a huge waste of money. If it is so good, why hasn't it been used?

Maybe you could explain why we need more F-22s when we haven't used them, and we already have 183 of them?

Maybe you could explain why Congress order 12 more, when the Defense Dept ordered only 4?

Maybe you could explain why both the Air Force & Army Secretaries withdrew support for the fighters saying "it's time to move on"?

Maybe you could explain why Secretary Gates said future funding of the F-22 was "a big problem"?

Maybe you could explain why the F-22 has limited air-to-ground capabilities as compared to the cheaper F-35?

Maybe you could explain why if the F-35 is still superior to any current foreign fighter, why waste money on something that we don't use and it not suited for modern warfare?

Maybe you could explain why an August 2008 RAND study showed that, as a land based aircraft, the F-22 would have little impact on a future conflict with China over Taiwan as its nearby bases would be shutdown by MRBMs and farther bases would require the assistance of tanker aircraft that would be quickly lost.

Your very words prove otherwise, DV.

That's a lie and a strawman.

You would not know this, of course, but military folks are VERY proud of the work they do. The airmen in question maintain, and FLY, the F-22. If you, and our asshole of a pResident, do not understand WHY it was an insult to these men to force them to roll out an anachronistic, outdated fighter, when they fly the ultimate air superiority fighter in the world and are justifiably proud of it, then you, like your Obamessiah, are just dumb as a sack of hair.

Blah. I know they are proud, with due reason. But they are capable of flying other figher aircraft. And I'm sure they will do fine. The F-22 is only a tool. And we can make better, more efficient tools. This is a boondoggle.

And telling them, in effect, to "stop whining" is just adding insult to injury. But I wouldn't expect you to understand either their pride, their honor, or the insult offered to them by Teh One, and signed off on by you.

The only one whining here is you. Our soldiers will do fine, as they are professionals.

Wipe your mouth, the spittle is thick.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-03 16:24:33

Shut up never-show, you're attepmts at insult are as pathetic as the rest of your worthless existance(sp).

And your opinion of the F-22 is duly noted and dismissed as utterly ignorant, thanks for being a complete ignoramus on all military aircraft.
Posted by bthewolf
2009-12-03 16:25:36


He will never get it. Obama's cronies pitched a hissy fit about an operational weapon system that the airmen were proud to operate. Once again the libtards made the whole thing a political statement and forced the change. In libtard land it is always about them. They have ZERO understanding of sacrifice, leadership, honor and so on. iow they despise the military.

Wipe your mouth, the spittle is thick.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-03 16:24:33


More projection of Retarddick..

And the F-22 was a clear example of waste. That also is wholly appropriate and the airmen can be upset all they want. It's not their call to make.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 15:14:44

And your opinion of the F-22 is duly noted and dismissed as utterly ignorant, thanks for being a complete ignoramus on all military aircraft.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 16:18:13

Wipe your mouth, the spittle is thick.

Also, no one said we had victory. I said don't be so cynical and eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 16:09:30


Cannot snatch defeat from something that does not exist Dick-Vacuum.


Melt down by L_R. Frothing at the mouth and gurgling to be heard.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-03 16:08:34


More projection of Retarddick..



Couple of military despisers..

Well, since I provided an account where it said Bush did land the plane, there is no reason for me to be pissed off. At least you got past lying about the other pilot in the plane with the President.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 15:27:35

So was Bush lying then when he said this Baud:

Later, Bush explained that he had taken the controls from the pilot, Cmdr. John
"Skip" Lussier, for about a third of the 15-minute flight at 360 knots, but had
just steered during the "straight" parts

Bush even admitted he didnt land it, so was Bush lying or were you?

The F-22 was a huge waste, and yes, the airmen DON'T make that call. It has nothing to do with a disdain for the military, which I have none. I know the right immediately creates that strawman whenever they lose an argument, "Oh, your problem is you hate _____."
Posted by D-Vega


"I don't know what you saw,"

That much is obvious to even the most casual observer.

"The F-22 was a huge waste,"

Unsupported assertions of (blatantly incorrect) "facts" do not an argument make. Tell us, oh DV of military brilliance, what is an "air superiority" fighter, what is its role, what is the CURRENT U.S. "air superiority" fighter, how old is its design, and how does it compare to "air superiority" fighters deployed by, or about to be deployed by, likely military opponents of the U.S.? Do that for me, and I might think there is some point in trying to explain to you why, far from being a "waste," the F-22 is a VITAL weapons system, without which we are in serious danger of being well and truly fucked flat in, say, a confrontation with the PRC over their attempts to militarily retake Taiwan (not that our gutless windsock of a pResident would "confront" anybody except a domestic political opponent).

"It has nothing to do with a disdain for the military, which I have none."

Your very words prove otherwise, DV. You would not know this, of course, but military folks are VERY proud of the work they do. The airmen in question maintain, and FLY, the F-22. If you, and our asshole of a pResident, do not understand WHY it was an insult to these men to force them to roll out an anachronistic, outdated fighter, when they fly the ultimate air superiority fighter in the world and are justifiably proud of it, then you, like your Obamessiah, are just dumb as a sack of hair. And telling them, in effect, to "stop whining" is just adding insult to injury. But I wouldn't expect you to understand either their pride, their honor, or the insult offered to them by Teh One, and signed off on by you.

Yes, he did take over the controls during the flight. He acted as the co-pilot during the landing. Bush was a pilot, and more recently by far than his father.

Posted by CavalierX
2009-12-03 15:36:08

Actually he had nothing to do with the landing, other than sitting in a seat, he even admitted as such, why are you so hung up on him landing the plane Cav?

That's producing the banner, Lying_Dumb_in_CA. A movie producer doesn't actually operate the camera or direct the movie.

Scott McClellan told CNN "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up.

The white house produced the banner. Deal with it.

Also, no one said we had victory. I said don't be so cynical and eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

the WH did NOT produce the banner, they hire a private company to do it,
Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 16:05:39

Melt down by L_R. Frothing at the mouth and gurgling to be heard.

Don’t be so cynical and eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 16:00:10


So we already have victory? Funny you spent an awful amount of time telling us the other day that we have never had any victories, especially since your criteria is all combat troops must be out of any country..

btw the WH did NOT produce the banner, they hire a private company to do it, please stop lying and making things up, again, despiser of the military.

Jesus, are you Libtards still whining on about this shit?

We’re talking about Presidents and military props, Cav.

Yes, he did take over the controls during the flight. He acted as the co-pilot during the landing. Bush was a pilot, and more recently by far than his father.

I never commented on being a co-pilot. What I said was he didn’t land the plane (which is true), that he was never trained in landing on an AC (which is true) because he wasn’t a Navy pilot like his dad (which is true.)

Why do you guys have so much trouble with the truth?

The crew of the USS Lincoln put up the banner because their mission was accomplished -- they were headed home.

Right, which is inappropriate when the speech is not about JUST that crew, it was about “major combat operations ending” for EVERYONE. That is why it was struck from the speech.

He could equally have changed the words to specify that the mission of the Lincoln was accomplished. But Bush's speech was supposed to address the larger war, the war still being fought, and so the words were removed altogether.

Ah, very good. So the banner was inappropriate. Thanks.

As Commander-in-Chief, he took responsibility, even though he had nothing to do with it. You Liberals have no idea what that looks like, do you?

He did have something to do with it because an aircraft carrier doesn’t have a vinyl printing press. The white house produced the banner.

Or he could have waited until they docked and walked aboard. Or he could have taken the fucking Space Shuttle up and jumped out from space to land on the deck without a parachute. Do you have a point here?

The point is he used the plane as a dramatic device, or PROP.

THe snowflake children were shown to make a very specific point: that unused embryos are not just waste matter to be flushed away, but human beings not yet born.

Thank you. He used them as PROPS.

You can't possibly think that's the same thing as Obama posturing in front of West Point cadets as he outlines his plan for deliberately losing a war.

What do you care? No matter what his plan was you would find something wrong with it, because you are wholly invested in this President failing.

He didn’t outline any plan for deliberately losing the war. He outlined his plan, one that will be carried out by our military. Don’t be so cynical and eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It has nothing to do with a disdain for the military, which I have none.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 15:48:47


Yes it does and yes you do.

Good job, DV - in a single comment, you manage to display your ignorance of weapons systems alongside your disdain for our military. Nice twofer.

I don't know what you saw, maybe you need to go back and review. The F-22 was a huge waste, and yes, the airmen DON'T make that call. It has nothing to do with a disdain for the military, which I have none. I know the right immediately creates that strawman whenever they lose an argument, "Oh, your problem is you hate _____."

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-12-03 15:43:12

More nonsense from dixon - fits in to this thread.

Ummm - being cautious . . .
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-03 15:32:57

Why? Your ISP is blocked.

No, says the truth, Crying_Like_a_bitch_in_CA.

And it wasn't Bush's fault at all. It was the large contractors who had lots of people working on the planes.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 15:25:29


Ah did you misplace your binky? Projecting a tantrum upon me? Glad to note that you are the sole holder of the truth. Obama's pitched a fit (again) about something military and in there self-important tantrum disrespected some military members who just try to go to work and do the job they love. Tell ya something DV, the military and the people in it HATE fin politics. They could care less about Obama's past votes on this weapon system or another. Point is it is deployed and those men and women take pride in what they do. I know this will not impact you in anyway, because like Obama and dems in general, underneath all your PC words, you disdain the military and really do not understand a thing about it nor about the men and women who serve in it. IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA WHEN HE VISITS A MILITARY BASE IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE MILITARY UNIT, PERIOD.

Okay, according to my brief research:

Jesus, are you Libtards still whining on about this shit?

- Bush never landed or piloted the plane, as he was never trained in landing on an aircraft carrier, as opposed to his father who was a Navy Pilot.

Yes, he did take over the controls during the flight. He acted as the co-pilot during the landing. Bush was a pilot, and more recently by far than his father.

- The White House produced the banner, which the Navy put up.

The crew of the USS Lincoln put up the banner because their mission was accomplished -- they were headed home.

- The words "Mission Accomplished" were removed from the speech at the request of Rumsfeld who felt it was too "conclusive". But the banner remained.

He could equally have changed the words to specify that the mission of the Lincoln was accomplished. But Bush's speech was supposed to address the larger war, the war still being fought, and so the words were removed altogether.

- Bush admitted that posting the banner was a mistake.

As Commander-in-Chief, he took responsibility, even though he had nothing to do with it. You Liberals have no idea what that looks like, do you?

- Bush could have still landed on the carrier in a helicopter, as the carrier was only 30 miles offshore when the speech occured.

Or he could have waited until they docked and walked aboard. Or he could have taken the fucking Space Shuttle up and jumped out from space to land on the deck without a parachute. Do you have a point here?

- In conclusion, if Obama used the WP cadets as props, then Bush certainly used soliders as props continuously throughout his terms, as well as other props, like the "Snowflakes Babies".

THe snowflake children were shown to make a very specific point: that unused embryos are not just waste matter to be flushed away, but human beings not yet born. You can't possibly think that's the same thing as Obama posturing in front of West Point cadets as he outlines his plan for deliberately losing a war.

And the F-22 was a clear example of waste. That also is wholly appropriate and the airmen can be upset all they want. It's not their call to make.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 15:14:44

Good job, DV - in a single comment, you manage to display your ignorance of weapons systems alongside your disdain for our military. Nice twofer.

Well, since I provided an account . . .
Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 15:27:35

Ummm - being cautious . . .

You still pissed that you missed the fact that Bush didnt land the plane on the carrier, get over it man, you were wrong no harm in that.
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 15:19:11

Well, since I provided an account where it said Bush did land the plane, there is no reason for me to be pissed off. At least you got past lying about the other pilot in the plane with the President.

No, says the truth, Crying_Like_a_bitch_in_CA.

And it wasn't Bush's fault at all. It was the large contractors who had lots of people working on the planes.

And the F-22 was a clear example of waste. That also is wholly appropriate and the airmen can be upset all they want. It's not their call to make.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 15:14:44


Says you... And this was Bush's fault in what way?

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 15:01:53

Baud,

You still pissed that you missed the fact that Bush didnt land the plane on the carrier, get over it man, you were wrong no harm in that.

Aw, RP, C'mon dude. I wanted the puppy to keep chasing its tail.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 15:08:20

Yeh, there's something to be said about tiring the puppy out. But then, a good swat on the muzzle also does wonders.

I conceded the point on McVeigh, Nixon. And I also am the one who disproved crthns's assertion about Duke.

And the F-22 was a clear example of waste. That also is wholly appropriate and the airmen can be upset all they want. It's not their call to make.

If he needs proof, I will be happy to oblige.
D-Vega

Is that sort of like that proof of Tim McVeigh being in all those conservative organizations you ran your mouth about one day not too long ago? Or is it like crthns claim that David Duke voted for Bush in 2004?

Which kind of proof are you mumbling about Vega?

Another example of Obama the military hater.


White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.
"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

...

The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger with the president.


Full article over at Ace of Spades

Aw, RP, C'mon dude. I wanted the puppy to keep chasing its tail.

By the way, what do you think of my conjecture that he chose West Point to make his speach due to it's safety as a venue?

I think if he wanted to have a safe venue, he could have had a townhall where he screened audience members.

And I would criticize him if he did something inappropriate, like when he gave unworkable DVDs to the Brits, or a copy of his speeches to Queen Elizabeth, or speaking in Germany prior to the election, etc.

But speaking at West Point as we are on the verge of a major escalation in the very-dangerous Afghan-Pak situation? Very appropriate. More appropriate then doing it in Congress or a townhall. This is serious shit we are talking about here.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-12-03 15:04:25

Well Thank you Captain Obvious!

PRESIDENT BUSH JOKES ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ

For the record to compare against in the future:

DV arguing tactics

1) Bush's Fault

2) But Bush did it too

3) Projection of current emotional state onto other posters


In future threads we shall identify by the number the arguement DV is making.

Keep crying, Baud.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 14:56:30

The sound you hear is laughter, D-Vega. Laughter at the little pussy who thinks he is better than everyone else, yet only is able to prove what an impotent prick he is.

Isn't it about time for the D-Vega run away to occur? How's that sand-pounding coming along?

Keep crying, Baud.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:56:30


Projection from a libtard, LMAO forgot about the third rail of DV arguing.

Crying in stereo.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 14:51:05


Thats how he backs up his arguements "I said so". He is the lamest poster I have encountered in all of my blog reading.
Like I said before, I can guarentee that any article posted at rigthwingnews that DV chooses to post on he will eventually either make an arguement that "Bush's Fault" or "Bush did it too". His mind is too weak to argue in any other way.

Vega:
Being lectured by a leftist on "hypocrisy" is a laugh riot. Hipocrisy is exactly what you are doing when you fail to condemn the actions of your own side, all the while playing the "waaaaahhh your side does it too" card. Not that I actually expect you to be critical of Chimpy on anything mind you.

And yes, no one here is questioning Chimpy's right as commander in chief to address the troops any time and in any venue he pleases. Personally I don't think he is fit to even be in the same room as them, but that's beside the point.
We are just questioning his motives for doing so.

By the way, what do you think of my conjecture that he chose West Point to make his speach due to it's safety as a venue?

Keep crying, Baud.

"its culture."
Doh!

The main problem with Obama at West Point, IMHO, is that it seems so insincere coming from him. I heard yesterday that Der Spiegel claims that the WP Commandant had to instruct the cadets to clap heartily. That wouldn't surprise me given that typically, there is no love lost between the majority of those in uniform and Democrats in general and especially between OBAMA and those in uniform, given his naysaying about the surge (the notable exception being blacks and latinos in the military, who overwhelmingly support him).

Chris Matthews' admission that WP was the "enemy camp" is not just his feelings alone, I'm sure. It no doubt reflects the contempt of many on the Left for the military and it's culture.

Point is, I'm not obliged to show you squat. Bush joked about looking for WMD...
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 14:46:25

Interesting theory. You make a claim, are asked to provide proof of it, and you claim 'common knowledge' or 'I'm not obligated'. I will remember that the next time you come on here bitching and moaning about someone not providing proof of something they posted.

But thank you for the admission that you are nothing but a fucking pussy who thinks you and your opinion are above everyone elses.

You obviously need to pound some more sand. So get to it, bitch!

Don't be so hard on yourself, Living.

It's common knowledge, Baud. Any idiot knows about it.

Well, maybe not any idiot.

Point is, I'm not obliged to show you squat. Bush joked about looking for WMD, which addresses Czech's statement about how Bush would never make a joke about troops & photo ops, but would make jokes about something that cost thousands of American lives. Should he be crucified for it? No, because it was just a bad joke. Obama's joke was just mediocre.

You notice Czech is not objecting, because he is smart enough to know that Bush joked about it. If he needs proof, I will be happy to oblige.

You can go... well, you know...

Do your own fucking research, Baud, because I am a complete fucking moron with an IQ of 68.
2009-12-03 14:39:50


About time you fessed up.

Do your own fucking research, Baud.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 14:39:50

So, no examples of Bush joking about WMD, just D-Vega's patented "Because I Said So" bullshit!

Did you finish pounding that sand like to told you to? If you need any more...

Do your own fucking research, Baud.

That's not deflection, DyingonaVine, that's a direct response to Czech's statement.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:36:55


Yes it is DumbassOlbermanncocksucker.

Again Buad, you seem to not know what you are talking about. When did any of those people joke about WMD?
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 14:35:23

Well, since you never provided an example when Bush joked about WMD, I just thought I'd ask. Seems I was right, things like this are only bad when it is a Republican doing it.

Every topic on this site turns into a "Bush's Fault" or "Bush did it too". Childish, old, worn, boring, iow DV.

Another example of deflection and change the subject.

That's not deflection, DyingonaVine, that's a direct response to Czech's statement.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:33:31

Vague circular logic, yawn.

So, did Bill Clinton joke about WMD? What about Hillary, or John Kerry, or Pelosi, or Reid, or Gore? Or is it only a joke to you when a Republican does it?

Again Buad, you seem to not know what you are talking about. When did any of those people joke about WMD?

Oh please, murray. Pointing out shameless hypocrisy is not deflection. Obama's speech at West Point was appropriate and did not use the cadets as props.

If you think so, then you MUST consider what Bush did as being stagecraft. That's called being consistent.

And as I've said, there are occasions of going too far (like the MA banner), but as a whole the President can do what the f*ck he wants in terms of addressing the troops. He is Commander in Chief. I don't care if the military likes him, loves him, hates him or is bored. It's irrelevant.

Naw, he just joked about looking for WMD. A main cause of our foray into Iraq, which cost thousands of lives. What a hoot.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 14:28:06

So, did Bill Clinton joke about WMD? What about Hillary, or John Kerry, or Pelosi, or Reid, or Gore?

Or is it only a joke to you when a Republican does it?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:25:04

Still lying and cannot answer a direct question, yawn.

Naw, he just joked about looking for WMD. A main cause of our foray into Iraq, which cost thousands of lives. What a hoot.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:28:06

Another example of deflection and change the subject.

And yes I failed to mention that this thread is now shot as thre leftist fools have sucessfully deflected it with their all too tiresome defence of "but, but your side does it too!". When they can't defend their guy's actions, that's all they have left.

You idiots really do need to get some new material.

Another reason most of us in the military (and it truly is MOST of us) never saw Bush as using troops as props is because 1. he was a former military member himself and 2. he put his money where his mouth was in terms of visiting wounded soldiers and meeting soldiers in the field as well as meeting with families of fallen soldiers.
Additionally, even folks I know in the military that had issues with him respected that he had conviction, something that Obama seems to lack.

Obama speaking at WP about a troop buildup in Af-Pak is using the troops as props? Nonsense.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:17:50


Again in your mind. Of course the Mission Accomplished banner thing ended up being a mistake because libtards like you and your bf Olbermann twisted it to represent the end of the Iraq war WHICH IT WAS NOT..You are the master of circle jerk and vague arguements.

On the other hand, George W. Bush - the President that made an unprecedented number of unpublicized visits to wounded soldiers and their families, even as the Left scourged him too many vacations - had seen enough horror to never let a joke like that pass his lips.

Naw, he just joked about looking for WMD. A main cause of our foray into Iraq, which cost thousands of lives. What a hoot.

You fsaid she was being dishonest about "reporting from the road" and having her picture taken in front of a bus BECAUSE she flew on a plane THREE times during her tour.

Three times which accounted for most of the travel. So it wasn't a bus tour, it was a plane tour. I don't know why you so desparately defend it if its no big deal. Oh, I know why. So she can once again claim victimhood and sell books. Ft Hood, here she comes!

The article clearly says it was a joke. And that was an entirely different occasion. And yes, that would mean Bush used the plane, the troops, the carrier as props.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 11:51:20

Maybe it was.

On the other hand, George W. Bush - the President that made an unprecedented number of unpublicized visits to wounded soldiers and their families, even as the Left scourged him too many vacations - had seen enough horror to never let a joke like that pass his lips.

You make it sound like it was a WH idea, it was not.

I didn't "make it" anything. I stated the facts. And the WH could have easily gotten the banner removed, as the speech was not specifically about that carrier, but about the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq (the inaccuracy of that is another thread).

If the banner was appropriate, then why was "mission: accomplished" struck from the speech? Why would Bush admit it was a mistake?

You can keep going around in circles on this, but it just dodges the point about using troops as props. Bush took stagecraft like that to another level. Obama speaking at WP about a troop buildup in Af-Pak is using the troops as props? Nonsense.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 14:13:11


LMAO you are such a diverter and liar. You fsaid she was being dishonest about "reporting from the road" and having her picture taken in front of a bus BECAUSE she flew on a plane THREE times during her tour. You are such a tard.

He probably chose to give his speach at West Point because it was one place he could 100% sure of a polite and receptive audience. No one in that crowd was going to boo him, shout "you lie" or anything of the sort. (as much as he deserves it on most occasions) Not only are most members of the military too respectful of authority figures and generally have better class than to do something like that, but military regulations prohibit such open acts of contempt toward the commander in chief. Any West Point cadet who made the mistake of booing the president in that crowd would probably find their army career over before it got started.

It was a 100% safe crowd for him.
Posted by murray_the_miser
2009-12-03 13:54:01

That's exactly what I told a friend the day the news came out about this. You couldn't find a more respectful crowd that would be sure to not embarrass you (under penalty of discipline, no less).

Still grasping onto that, Living? The point of the discussion is not percentages, but the fact that she was not being completely honest.

btw, DV since you made a bunch of false assertionson another thread and then ran away I'll bring it up here. What percentage of travel must Palin have by bus in order for her to call it a bus tour and be able to say "reporting from the road"?

"by their actions"....
sorry about the typos today.

According to Chris Matthews, it was "the enemy camp". So I guess he means to say that West Point is the enemy of our Commander in Cheif.
Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 13:57:04

Well, given that the majority of the military is conservative and that the left is my their actins and often by their own words anti-military, this is probably a fair assessment.

However the fact remains that NO ONE was going to be rude to chimpy during that speach. He was assured of a quiet and respectful reception no matter how many of the cadets probably privately beieve chimpy to be a scumbag.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 13:51:39

You always present such incomplete information. The banner was REQUESTED by the crew of the ship. Yes the White hired a Private Vendor to create it. It was the idea of the crew and they hung it. You make it sound like it was a WH idea, it was not. Pretty easy to poke holes in your arguements.

It was a 100% safe crowd for him.
Posted by murray_the_miser 2009-12-03 13:54:01

According to Chris Matthews, it was "the enemy camp". So I guess he means to say that West Point is the enemy of our Commander in Cheif.

Living, you couldn't poke holes in one of Tiger's girfriends.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 13:52:50


At least I go after girls there DV...

Military as props? Are you serious?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 10:55:50

Actually, I think it was a more cynical move than that.

He probably chose to give his speach at West Point because it was one place he could 100% sure of a polite and receptive audience. No one in that crowd was going to boo him, shout "you lie" or anything of the sort. (as much as he deserves it on most occasions) Not only are most members of the military too respectful of authority figures and generally have better class than to do something like that, but military regulations prohibit such open acts of contempt toward the commander in chief. Any West Point cadet who made the mistake of booing the president in that crowd would probably find their army career over before it got started.

It was a 100% safe crowd for him.

Posted by whats_up
2009-12-03 13:50:48

Thanks for proving the point that the banner was created and hung by the crew of the carrier, Jackass.

I made so such claims, I was just poking 3,235 holes in the arguement you chose to use.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 13:50:54

You mean that argument that Bush didnt land the plane, thanks for agreeing with me, perhaps you should tell BAud and Cav they still think that Bush did.

Living, you couldn't poke holes in one of Tiger's girfriends.

Okay, according to my brief research:

- Bush never landed or piloted the plane, as he was never trained in landing on an aircraft carrier, as opposed to his father who was a Navy Pilot.

- The White House produced the banner, which the Navy put up.

- The words "Mission Accomplished" were removed from the speech at the request of Rumsfeld who felt it was too "conclusive". But the banner remained.

- Bush admitted that posting the banner was a mistake.

- Bush could have still landed on the carrier in a helicopter, as the carrier was only 30 miles offshore when the speech occured.

- In conclusion, if Obama used the WP cadets as props, then Bush certainly used soliders as props continuously throughout his terms, as well as other props, like the "Snowflakes Babies".

Bush himself as said that he didnt land the plane, are all you righties so stupid?
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-03 13:48:47


I made so such claims, I was just poking 3,235 holes in the arguement you chose to use.

Only in your mind. The "Mission" for that Carrier Group was accomplished. It is the biggest liberal myth in the world that it was a refernce to the entire Iraq war as the banner was hung by the crew and not by the President nor his staff.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 13:49:00

Totally false, the banner was signed of by one Mr. Dan Bartlett at the time an aide to Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/13/politic...

Irrelevant, Living. The issue is whether it was appropriate, and it was not.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 13:44:42


Only in your mind. The "Mission" for that Carrier Group was accomplished. It is the biggest liberal myth in the world that it was a refernce to the entire Iraq war as the banner was hung by the crew and not by the President nor his staff.

Yeah the Navy frequently tells the POTUS what he can and cannot do.

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA
2009-12-03 13:42:19

Bush himself as said that he didnt land the plane, are all you righties so stupid?

Irrelevant, Living. The issue is whether it was appropriate, and it was not.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 13:44:42

From the article I linked to above.
"The crew on the aircraft carrier, not Bush or his staff, decided to put up the controversial "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung behind the president during his speech, Scott Zellem told his brother Ed. Even though the war in Iraq was still raging, the USS Abraham Lincoln was headed home, and for the men and women on board, the ship's mission was accomplished."

Not Irrelevant and completely appropriate, D-Vega!

Irrelevant, Living. The issue is whether it was appropriate, and it was not.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 13:41:37


Who hung the Mission Accomplished banner DV?

I don't think they would have allowed Bush to actually land the plane. Not necessarily because he wouldn't know how, but over fears for his safety.

Do you think the Navy would let anyone who has not been trained to land on a carrier do so? Especially when it is the President of the United States? Also how about the other article that I linked, are they lying now as well?
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-03 13:39:43


Yeah the Navy frequently tells the POTUS what he can and cannot do.

Does it really matter whether he landed it? The question is whether Bush used the entire image as props for himself politically.

To me, the "MA" banner was going too far, as the mission was far from accomplished.

But otherwise the President, being CinC, has every right and authority to address troops on whatever issue he wants, in any context. Being that this was an address on an escalation in AfPak it was wholly appropriate. And Bush's speech on the carrier, while vey dramatic, was appropriate because he was addressing troops on the issue of "major combat operations" ending.

Posted by CavalierX
2009-12-03 13:37:35

Cav,

Do you think the Navy would let anyone who has not been trained to land on a carrier do so? Especially when it is the President of the United States? Also how about the other article that I linked, are they lying now as well?

notice the words FLOWN BY

I also noticed the words "the president made a tailhook landing." Not "the president's plane made a tailhook landing" or "the plane made a tailhook landing" or "the pilot made a tailhook landing."

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 13:31:50

Here try a different article dumb ass and use the brains that god gave you.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030...

Cmdr. John "Skip" Lussier, with his boss in the co-pilot's seat, brought his S-3B Viking jet in for a landing on the flight deck of this carrier as it cruised home to San Diego.


you people on the right are just plain stupid, Bush has had NO training landing on a carrier, they arent going to let him do it.

Have fun choking down that heaping plate of FAIL.

Not that article, the one where I originally saw the quote, ABCNews' Jake Tapper:

Headline: "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base

SEOUL, South Korea -- On his way back home, President Obama stopped at Osan Air Base in South Korea, greeting roughly 1,500 Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines, many in camouflage, in an airport hanger.

Before a crowd of troops holding cameras and cell phones, the president joked, "you guys make a pretty good photo op."

Yet again, the article says nothing of the sort. Apparently you lefties can't be bothered to read these things at all.

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-12-03 13:30:44

Sam,

You are really struggling, what part of "S-3B Viking jet flown by John "Skip" Lussier are you unclear about?

notice the words FLOWN BY, the name after those is not Bush, geez you might be as stupid as Baud.
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 13:27:52

Yes, the plane was flown by John "Skip" Lussier. And "he president made a tailhook landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln".

So Lussier flew the plane and Bush landed it. A pretty common practice when there are two pilots on board.

You must be going out of your way to be stupid today, whats_up. Too bad D-Vega has the dumbass award wrapped up. You can stop trying so hard!

Got that? Not "the president joked" but "the president said".

In fact, the word "joke" does not appear anywhere in the article at all.

Have fun choking down that heaping plate of FAIL.

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-12-03 13:24:05

Sam,

Perhaps you should read some other articles then, where clearly they indicate that this was a joke.

You need to read a little further, it clearly states that Bush did not land the plane.

Yet again, the article says nothing of the sort. Apparently you lefties can't be bothered to read these things at all.

Was it in invisible Internet ink?

Posted by CavalierX
2009-12-03 13:25:37

What you cant understand english?

Later that day, the president made a tailhook landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a S-3B Viking jet flown by John "Skip" Lussier

notice the words FLOWN BY, the name after those is not Bush, geez you might be as stupid as Baud.

You need to read a little further, it clearly states that Bush did not land the plane.

Was it in invisible Internet ink?

The article clearly says it was a joke.

False. The article says nothing of the sort:

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cellphones to snap pictures.

"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.

Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer, more prosperous world for all of us."

Got that? Not "the president joked" but "the president said".

In fact, the word "joke" does not appear anywhere in the article at all.

Have fun choking down that heaping plate of FAIL.

Baud, if you would have followed my instructions on the other thread correctly, you would be less tense right now.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 13:20:44

And if you had followed my advice, D-Vega, this board would have much less stupidity on it. Oh, and you can take your little bitch whats_up with you.

Well, now; I stand corrected. Bush did land the plane after all, it seems.

Posted by CavalierX
2009-12-03 13:17:47

Cav,

You need to read a little further, it clearly states that Bush did not land the plane.

You must have missed the part about the plane being flown by Cmdr. John "Skip" Lussier, not Lt. Cmdr. Scott Zellem.

Why do you feel the need to lie so often, whats_up?

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 13:17:21

Ah, my bad I got the pilots mixed up. However neither of them had the last name of Bush, why do you feel the need to lie so often, baud?

Baud, if you would have followed my instructions on the other thread correctly, you would be less tense right now.

Later that day, the president made a tailhook landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln

Well, now; I stand corrected. Bush did land the plane after all, it seems.

Thanks for pointing out exactly what I have been saying, Bush didnt land the airplane. Why did you feel the need to express that he did?
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 13:13:21

You must have missed the part about the plane being flown by Cmdr. John "Skip" Lussier, not Lt. Cmdr. Scott Zellem.

Why do you feel the need to lie so often, whats_up?

Obama's "so-called" photo-op? He SAID it was a photo op.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 13:09:55

Evidently you dont understand sarcasm.

Comments?

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 13:08:37

Thanks for pointing out exactly what I have been saying, Bush didnt land the airplane. Why did you feel the need to express that he did?

We were on topic Baud, you cant seem to follow along. We were comparing Bush's photo op using the troops compared to Obama's so called photo op using the troops, care to comment?
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 13:05:27

Obama's "so-called" photo-op? He SAID it was a photo op.

I have never complained about the flight suit there Cav. I was merely pointing out Bauds stupidity when he made the claim that BUsh landed the plane on the carrier.
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 13:00:23


From the obituary of Lt. Cmdr. Scott Zellem
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.postgaz...

On May 1, 2003, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Zellem was standing in a briefing room at North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego when President George W. Bush entered, wearing an olive-green naval flight suit.

"Mr. President," Zellem said, "you look awesome."

"Thanks, 'Z-man,' " Bush replied, using Zellem's Navy call sign.

Later that day, the president made a tailhook landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a S-3B Viking jet flown by John "Skip" Lussier, commander of Zellem's squadron. Bush then gave a speech that heralded an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Comments?

Let's get back on topic, shall we.

We were on topic Baud, you cant seem to follow along. We were comparing Bush's photo op using the troops compared to Obama's so called photo op using the troops, care to comment?

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 12:52:07

Still trying to claim that Bush landed the plane dumb ass. It would be nice if you actually took the time to KNOW what you were talking about, I know a stretch.

You are correct; he did not land the plane. He did handle it briefly during the flight, however. But the part that really makes you look stupid is you don't know that the cabin of the type of plane he was in -- passenger or not -- is not pressurised. The only way to fly in that plane is in a flight suit.

Posted by CavalierX
2009-12-03 12:51:33

I have never complained about the flight suit there Cav. I was merely pointing out Bauds stupidity when he made the claim that BUsh landed the plane on the carrier.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-12-03 12:52:51

Whereas, dixon, I'm never amazed at your stupidity.

I am simply amazed at your stupidity in this matter.
Posted by whats_up
2009-12-03 12:22:18

You got my proof yet bitch?

but once again HE DIDNT LAND IT ON THE CARRIER.
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 12:35:40

OK, so he was a pilot, not a passenger, but because Lt. Commander Scott Zellem, then President Bush was NOT the pilot.

Since lying takes no effort from you, I guess you have to twist yourself into pretzels trying to justify your stupidity in order to get any exercise.

Let's get back on topic, shall we. Oh, and D-Vega called and said you haven't finished sucking him off. Get busy little bitch!

He did not fly the plane and land it on the carrier you ignorant ass, he was a passenger, Jesus you are dumb!!

You are correct; he did not land the plane. He did handle it briefly during the flight, however. But the part that really makes you look stupid is you don't know that the cabin of the type of plane he was in -- passenger or not -- is not pressurised. The only way to fly in that plane is in a flight suit.

He didn't want to lie to the American people.

Why stop now?

Right, not a passenger, a 2nd pilot... WHICH WAS PRESIDENT BUSH.

You must be trying to take D-Vega's RWN Dumbass of the Year Award from him.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 12:27:42

Actually dipshit the plane is a 4 seater and yes Bush was on it, but once again HE DIDNT LAND IT ON THE CARRIER.

President Obama did not use the word "win" or "victory" in his rather dull Afghanistan speech.

He didn't want to lie to the American people.

Almost as funny as your lame attempts to make points, Baud.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 12:19:59

How are you able to type with your head stuck so far up your ass, D-Vega?

Also the plane that he landed in is certianly built for more than one pilot...
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 12:22:18

Right, not a passenger, a 2nd pilot... WHICH WAS PRESIDENT BUSH.

You must be trying to take D-Vega's RWN Dumbass of the Year Award from him.

Read the account again, whats_up. Bush was in control of the plane. He was not just riding. The jet he flew is not a passenger aircraft.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 12:08:24

You are full of shit Baud, the pilot that flew him onto the Abraham Lincoln was Lt. Commander Scott Zellem, jesus your ingnorance is amazing. Also the plane that he landed in is certianly built for more than one pilot, I am simply amazed at your stupidity in this matter.

Almost as funny as your lame attempts to make points, Baud.

The article clearly says it was a joke.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 11:51:20

Sure, a joke about our troops as props. Very funny. Almost as funny as Matthews "enemy camp" joke or Ann Coulter's "poison in the creme brule" joke.

He did not fly the plane and land it on the carrier you ignorant ass, he was a passenger, Jesus you are dumb!!
Posted by whats_up 2009-12-03 11:51:13

Read the account again, whats_up. Bush was in control of the plane. He was not just riding. The jet he flew is not a passenger aircraft.

Ah yes, the classic liberal deflection. When all else fails, just claim it was all "a joke".

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-12-03 11:43:34

Evidently you cant read either Sam, as the article clearly states that is a joke.

The article clearly says it was a joke. And that was an entirely different occasion. And yes, that would mean Bush used the plane, the troops, the carrier as props.

Pilot Wardrobe? He flew the damn plane and landed on the carrier you ignorant ass. What did you expect him to do, wear an Amrani Suit.

There is no depth pricks like you won't sink to to take a slap at your betters.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-03 11:42:38

Baud,

He did not fly the plane and land it on the carrier you ignorant ass, he was a passenger, Jesus you are dumb!!

Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 11:26:38

Ah yes, the classic liberal deflection. When all else fails, just claim it was all "a joke".

pilot-wardrobe and all. Nah, no props there.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-12-03 11:26:38

Pilot Wardrobe? He flew the damn plane and landed on the carrier you ignorant ass. What did you expect him to do, wear an Amrani Suit.

There is no depth pricks like you won't sink to to take a slap at your betters.

I know where it's from, martin. So you are saying that a joke the President made, while in Korea thanking servicemen, means that him speaking at West Point about deploying 30K more troops to Afghan was using them as props? The CinC of the military addressing cadets about a new effort?

It's pathetic, considering how many times Bush spoke in the same manner, including the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, pilot-wardrobe and all. Nah, no props there.

Vega:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...


The money quote is about two-thirds of the way down the page.

Who said that & when, john?

"You guys make a pretty good photo-op"

Military as props? Are you serious?

One of the things that the Obama Administration has given us is that Liberals think they are going to be in power forever and are now free to be truthful in their dialogue. So we get the hatred of the Military, we get the abject racism and sexism, we get the stupidity we've always known existed in Liberals thrown in our face with an added "what are you going to do about it?"

And when they are out of power again, the screams for tolerance of their viewpoint and BI-PARTISANSHIP will be deafening.